CHARTING A NEW COURSE
INTRODUCTION
How are these fateful choices to be made? Here, too, the future will not be like the present. The changing politics of research and the nature of the choices to be made demand new approaches to decisionmaking.
The changing politics of research and the nature of the choices to be made demand new approaches to decisionmaking.
Wise decisions necessary to achieve a hopeful vision for the future will require a perspective that encompasses a range of essential elements—personnel, programs, infrastructure, and financial support. The interdependence of investigators, their host institutions, and the sponsoring agencies in meeting the requirements of the enterprise must also be considered.
CHANGING POLITICS OF RESEARCH
During the two decades following World War II, the academic research enterprise was composed of relatively few research universities. A few prominent scientists and engineers, representing a small number of fields and institutions, were recognized as national leaders within the U.S. research system. They were generally viewed by the research community as able judges of the system's capabilities, aspirations, and needs. The policy choices confronting these leaders were clear because the research community and the national political leadership had coalesced around a common purpose—to enhance the national security of the United States through an enlarged research capacity.
The U.S. academic research enterprise has expanded nationally and internationally to become the largest such undertaking in the world.
To achieve that purpose, the principal federal role in the academic research enterprise was to provide financial support for the conduct of research and the expanding array of institutions and research fields. The relationship of federal research sponsors and the academic research community evolved in the form of scientific advisory committees and informal interactions. Formal government-university interactions in research, including coordinated or joint planning, were generally viewed, and still are by many, as an inappropriate federal intrusion into the operations of academic institutions and contrary to the autonomy of U.S. universities.
In recent years, however, the research enterprise has changed significantly. These changes have profound implications for decisionmaking. They are:
Diversification. The U.S. academic research enterprise has expanded nationally and internationally to become the largest such undertaking in the world. Including both aspiring and more well-established undergraduate colleges and graduate universities, it boasts well over 200 research institutions. More than 150,000 investigators are active participants in the enterprise. The funding of academic research has be-
come more diverse due to increasing levels of support from the states, industry, and the universities themselves.
Competing Purposes. The consensus within the enterprise about a common purpose has dissipated. There are a host of new and exciting research opportunities, but there is no clear identification of or agreement on their relative importance. Today, the objectives of the enterprise are much more diverse. These often competing objectives include not only boosting the nation's basic research capacity, but also strengthening its economic competitiveness, enhancing the environment, and providing the opportunity for all qualified investigators to pursue their ideas to the fullest.
Today, the objectives of the enterprise are much more diverse. These often competing objectives include not only boosting the nation's basic research capacity, but also strengthening its economic competitiveness, enhancing the environment, and providing the opportunity for all qualified investigators to pursue their ideas to the fullest.
Interdependence. There is greater interdependence today between academic research institutions and those who fund academic research. Government agencies increasingly rely on university resources and expertise to fulfill their missions. Likewise, universities cannot realize their research and educational aspirations without financial and other support from government agencies.
Changing Composition of the Research Community. Newer members of the research community are bringing different sets of personal expectations and social values to their careers. Within universities, this is causing a reexamination of many traditional features of research careers, including the concept of "mentoring," promotion and tenure policies, and other institutional arrangements. At the national level, the changing composition of the research community', particularly the addition of more women and minorities, means the research enterprise will have to work to create research opportunities for these new entrants and allow them to participate more in decisionmaking activities.
The U.S. research system has reached a size and importance that makes it much more susceptible to outside political intervention and pressure.
Public Visibility. The U.S. research system has reached a size and importance that makes it much more susceptible to outside political intervention and pressure. The research community is in increasing demand to help solve social, economic, environmental, and educational problems at both the national and international levels. Science and technology have taken on more importance as contributors to the economic health of individual regions within the United States, the United States as a whole, and other countries. Regulatory concerns related to the experimental use of animals, radioactive materials, and genetic-engineering have involved the political and legal sectors in certain aspects of the conduct of research. As a result, there is closer public scrutiny of universities, both as stewards of public resources and as guardians of scholarly integrity.
These changes have had the cumulative effect of diffusing the leadership of the enterprise and broadening the array of competing interests and
objectives among the participants. No single group of individuals, no small set of research institutions and no one government agency is in a position to represent the full spectrum of interests and objectives within the U.S. research community, or is sufficiently powerful to make decisions for the whole enterprise.
These changes have had the cumulative effect of diffusing the leadership of the enterprise and broadening the array of competing interests and objectives among the participants. No single group of individuals, no small set of research institutions and no one government agency is in a position to represent the full spectrum of interests and objectives within the U.S. research community, or is sufficiently powerful to make decisions for the whole enterprise.
SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
The working group believes the choices facing the enterprise—both near-term decisions and strategic options—will best be made if the broad array of participants in the enterprise—investigators, university administrators, research sponsors, and the political and economic sectors—are involved. It is difficult to imagine making these choices without inter-sectoral participation in decisionmaking and a perspective which encompasses personnel, programs, infrastructure, and financial support.
Near-Term Decisions. Choices about priority-setting and funding responsibilities affect all sectors of the enterprise. Each will want to contribute its perspectives to the choices and listen attentively to the perspectives of others. Such choices can be made only through an ongoing process of deliberations among all affected parties. Each university will have to make choices that best fit its organization, management, and educational programs. Together with larger professional organizations, universities will have to adapt to societal change. University-level decisions will be most effective when faculty and administrators work together.
Strategic Options. Choices about the size and structure of the enterprise will be made not only by those directly involved in the enterprise, but also by participants in the political, economic, and public interest sectors. Indeed, economic and political decisions may be the most important determining factors. For example, expansion could be achieved only with increased public investments in research, which will be governed largely by economic and political decisions. Without support from those two sectors, the tension between unaddressed research opportunities and a limited research budget will only increase. Likewise, while the structure of the enterprise will be determined in part by those who are directly involved in the enterprise, it will be substantially influenced by political decisions.
In sum, both the changing politics of research and the nature of the choices to be made demand a quantum jump in the degree and nature of interactions, communication, and information-sharing by those with a stake in the future of the enterprise.
In sum, both the changing politics of research and the nature of the choices to be made demand a quantum jump in the degree and nature of interactions, communication, and information-sharing by those with a stake in the future of the enterprise.
NEW APPROACHES TO DECISIONMAKING
There are several mechanisms already in existence that are designed to facilitate communication among universities, the federal government, state governments, and industry. (See box on page 56.) None of these mechanisms currently addresses the full range of issues that the U.S. academic re-
search enterprise will face, however, nor do they involve the full range of participants. In addition, none is constituted to carry out joint planning between government agencies and universities, based on the capabilities, constraints, and ambitions of each.
Decisions affecting the U.S. academic research enterprise should be undertaken only through a more deliberate, consensus-building process.
New approaches to decisionmaking at the national level should be considered that incorporate the following characteristics:
Consensus-building. Decisions affecting the U.S. academic research enterprise should be undertaken only through a more deliberate, consensus-building process. This will require a degree of open communication among institutions, agency leaders, and academic faculty that does not now exist. Many expectations and behaviors of those participating in the research enterprise will have to change.
Joint-planning. Well thought out and consistent national policies and priorities will require greater information sharing among universities, government, and industries. Careful monitoring and regular feedback will be required. Research sponsors will have to adopt more consistent funding policies. Universities will have to live up to their part of the bargain, as efficient and honest guardians of the public's money.
Inclusiveness. All key players in academic research—scientists and engineers, university administrators, and government and industry offi-
|
ADVISORY MECHANISMS Current Mechanisms. Several existing mechanisms facilitate communication among universities, the federal government, state governments and industry. These include agency-specific groups, such as the National Science Board, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Institutes of Health and NIH institute advisory committees, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, and the Defense Science Board; government-wide groups, such as the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET); and non-federal groups, such as the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (convened by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine) and the Science and Technology Council of the States. New Approaches. New approaches to decisionmaking could arise through modifications of these existing advisory mechanisms. For example, the renewal of FCCSET has institutionalized discussions and joint planning among the federal agencies on a broad range of science and technology issues. More broadly, is it possible to further institutionalize government-university-investigator interaction and planning? How can federal agency-specific advisory groups best contribute to such a process? How might the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable use its convening and analytical roles to better contribute to the decisionmaking needs within the enterprise? How might the current congressional appropriations process for research and technology be better organized so that the needs of the entire U.S. research system are considered? |
cials—must take part in the effort. The perspectives of investigators and program managers are vital. They are the ones who understand most fully the emerging scientific frontiers, the requirements for carrying out high-quality research, and the need for excellence in both undergraduate and graduate education. Decisionmaking should also include the perspectives of senior officers of agencies and universities. Their knowledge of institutional needs, capabilities and constraints, resources, operating procedures, and long-term goals is also essential.
The perspectives of investigators and program managers are vital. They are the ones who understand most fully the emerging scientific frontiers, the requirements for carrying out high-quality research, and the need for excellence in both undergraduate and graduate education.
Broad-based Constituencies. Many of the most important influences on the enterprise—political judgments and economic policies, for example—are governed by persons outside of the research community. Thus discussions about the size of the enterprise and the scope of research institutions must involve members of Congress, state governors, and state legislators, among others. In addition to their current decisionmaking roles, these officials must become involved in the previously described consensus-building processes.
Preservation of Local Autonomy. New approaches to decision-making must be sensitive to the states, boards of governors, boards of trustees, and university faculty and administrators, who have ultimate authority for governing and administering the nation's colleges and universities.
A strategy of active interdependence among the various sectors of the research enterprise will entail risks. First, there is the danger of overly centralized decisionmaking. A second danger is that pluralistic approaches may result in incremental or partial outcomes. Third, there is the risk of inaction<.
A strategy of active interdependence among the various sectors of the research enterprise will entail risks. First, there is the danger of overly centralized decisionmaking. Governmental agencies, through their funding and regulatory authority, have greater power to influence the research enterprise than do university faculty and administrations, industry, and the nonprofit sector. A strategy of greater interdependence must avoid intrusive governmental micro-management of the research enterprise. A second danger is that pluralistic approaches may result in incremental or partial outcomes. The nature of the problems facing the enterprise and of the challenges ahead require comprehensive and consistent policies and programs. Third, there is the risk of inaction. Consensus-based decisionmaking processes can be time-consuming and can lack decisiveness. The challenges facing the research enterprise will at times require immediate, bold, or experimental approaches.
LEADERSHIP
Facing up to the difficult choices ahead through active interdependence—while avoiding the risks inherent in pluralistic, consensus-based approaches—requires strong, visionary, and dynamic leadership within each sector of the enterprise. Investigators, through their professional societies and other forums, need to agree on and articulate the research priorities within each scientific and engineering discipline. University leaders need to better articulate the goals, purposes and priorities of their institutions.
Government leaders need to explicitly spell out the government's goals, priorities, and policies for supporting academic research.
If the U.S. academic research enterprise is to enter the 21st century in a position of strength, the increasingly diverse groups and institutions that comprise it must set aside their special interests and join together in common purpose.
Collective leadership is required to define the common purpose of the enterprise as a whole. If the U.S. academic research enterprise is to enter the 21st century in a position of strength, the increasingly diverse groups and institutions that comprise it must set aside their special interests and join together in common purpose. The stakes could not be higher.
